Sorry, I'll bite. The problem is that the "anti-tax" people that are elected (and electable in the future) are not against giving more money and power to the police in general. And neither are the "pro-tax" people. This isn't about money. It's about power and authoritarian over-reach. You could take away their choppers and tanks and cut salaries but that wouldn't address the underlying issues. By trying to steer this into a conversation about taxes you fail to see the very real problems with police brutality, corruption, lying, profiling, and on and on. Now, back on topic...

Government, police, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, with no excess or space for overreach. It's all about taxes - taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against government overreach, and the Constitution was written with this fundamental truth firmly in mind.

Of course, of all of Congress there are but a handful of congresscritters who actually are for less government spending, and usually the voter's choice is merely between which group of supporters the tax money will go to. That's a cultural problem in the US, and we can't begin to fix it until every call for lower taxes stops being dismissed with "you anarchist and probable racist, why do you want 0 government".

Fixing the problem starts with popular acceptance of the idea that one can say we're sending too much without being some extremist calling for the end of government. Less does not mean none - spread the word!

But the people calling for low taxes are, by and large, far-right nutjobs. They shouldn't have to be, I agree, but it's the big problem with US politics: The two-party, two-faction system forces everyone to ally with one of the extremes. So you can't be just opposed to high taxation - well, you can, but you'll be ignored and excluded. You need to buy the whole package: Low tax, guns for all, no abortion, no gay marriage, climate change is a liberal hoax, wave the flag and God Bless America.

Then the perfect party for you is the Tea Party. Check them out. They're not the right-wing nutjobs you believe them to be. There are plenty of libertarians (and even some Democrats!) to be found among their ranks.

Ah yes, the nutjobs slander. Have you ever considered the possibility that the people who believe differently than you have put as much thought as or more thought than you into the issues and simply come to a different conclusion?

You need to buy the whole package: Low tax, guns for all, no abortion, no gay marriage, climate change is a liberal hoax, wave the flag and God Bless America.

What you fail to realize, either intentionally or not, is that you're complaining about political coalitions.

To boil it down to my main issues, I'm pro-life and pro second amendment.

Low taxes are something that I regard as a "nice to have" but not a requirement. I don't care much about gay "marriage" or flag waving. I don't think that reducing particulate emissions would be the worst thing in the world.

I support the people who care about those issues because they support me with mine.

It's not just my side, both sides do it.You don't really think that the upper-middle class white feminists give half a damn about some poor black kid's police brutality claim, do you?

Before 1992, I would have probably been a Democrat. I wasn't fond of Reagan or Reaganomics. George Bush Sr. was a filthy liar. No new taxes indeed. But in those days, the Democrats made it clear that pro-life, pro second amendment people were not welcome in their party while the Republicans opened their arms and welcomed us in.

Want to change things? Offer something more substantive than scorn and ridicule. Otherwise, a lot of people like me will have no choice but to vote for whichever John McCain clone gets the GOP nomination in 2016.

I'm not debating my beliefs with you. Basically, you don't get a vote in deciding what's important to me.

I put it in quotes because it's a neologism. Like I said, I don't really care about gay "marriage" but the people who support me on my issues care about it, so I lend my support to them in return. Do you think I care about what marginal tax rate someone making 200k/year pays? Nope, not at all but those guys tend to assist me when something that I care about it up for public debate, so I return the favor

The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job,... It's all about taxes... there are but a handful of congresscritters who actually are for less government spending,

Are you unhappy with taxes or with budget allocation? The first and third part above are about budget allocation, which, unfortunately, has very little to do with taxation. The middle part is about taxes, which, unfortunately, have very little to do with budget allocation.

I favor reducing spending and increasing taxes. That is because I am a fiscal conservative and we are currently running a wildly excessive deficit. I believe in running a balanced budget except during exceptional economic downturns, in which a short-term deficit is fiscally prudent for the long-term outcome, and in times of plenty, when a short term surplus prepares our larder for the next downturn.

Conflating reductions in spending with reductions in taxation is a premeditated psychological manipulation tactic. There are bad people out there who want to maximize their personal short-term outcome by cranking up the deficit and damn the consequences to the economy. Those people are not helpful to America. Do not fall victim to the false equivalence of taxation and spending.

Business, private security, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. Doesn't help that corporations are also bigger people. Taxes are the only practical weapon the common voter has against corporate overreach. What's your solution if we don't fund a group to watch them? We shouldn't just force agencies to spend our taxes wisely, but also demand how and to whom we allocate those taxes to.

This is the other kneejerk response to any suggestion of reduced government spending that needs to die forever.

1 - How about we cut government spending in some are other than the tiny percentage spent on protecting people against corporate abuse?

2 - We have a system in place for this. The problem with it is not that it's underfunded, but that it's been corrupted by the very corporations it tries to regulate! Arguably, stuff like the DMCA shows that more harm than good is done in some areas, thanks to this. This is perhaps the most serious problem in internal politics in America today but it's not in any way a funding problem.

Given no government oversight business will have private security with the power to abuse people. History has shown rather then jailing they'll mutilate and kill as it is more cost effective. In the Americas Columbus started it by cutting off the hands of the natives who were not producing. There is the whole history of slavery which was run by private enterprise, companies such as the East India company and the Hudson Bay company both of which had powers usually reserved to government, the Pinkerton Detect

No, I think you're logic is fallacious. You're not looking at the functional power wielded by either party. Since the US is a democracy which holds private property, including the assets of a corporation, as the highest form of freedom, the government can't take that property without due process.

This process is handled through the court systems, which works with lawyers and Judges, and juries. The only lawyers that work for the government are criminal prosecutors, and they make less than corporate lawyer

What you're describing takes a fundamental change in the human condition of most people. Money and taxes are an enabler for those who are pro-authoritarian. I don't think the original posters thought should be dismissed so coldly.

You're a god damn idiot, trying to tie this to sex education in schools and labor unions. Not everything wrong in the world is connected to the handful of issues that literally define your identity. An identity made for you by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Freedomworks, and Americans For Prosperity ( and dozens more ).

I swear, for most of my life I've tried to be gentle when it comes to politics and religion, but look what that's got us. People like you who troll forums and try to find every opportunity to regurgitate the propaganda you're too stupid to see through.

Next time you feel like stretching the current topic into a place where you can insert a not-so-witty, not-so-clever comment on big-guvment or unions, just SHUT THE FUCK UP.

So when are reckless endangerment charges going to be filed against the pilot? He intentionally steered his craft towards an object that they admit through their own filings presented a risk of a crash.

The flight controller didn't do any of the recording. The FAA (a *federal* agency, mind you) mandates ALL radio transmissions be recorded. The flight controller's only job is to control traffic. They have zero ability to trigger, delete, modify, etc., recordings. The pilot of every aircraft should know this so it wouldn't be something they'd be all that concerned about. Their supervisors/managers on the ground may not know this, however... And the FAA is quite good about responding to FOIA requests.

Also, firing a federal employee is actually really hard, even for cause. Usually, they're just given a crappy job with almost nothing to do so they'll feel motivated to quit on their own. Trust me, that's actually a LOT easier than getting firing someone at the federal level. Besides, even the NYPD can't get a federal employee fired since the NYPD is a state-level agency.

The most likely outcome, in my opinion, is that the NYPD will grudgingly admit their mistake, tell the pair to knock it off in some semi-friendly manner while the cameras are watching, then go back to business-as-usual until they're caught in their own lies again. Meanwhile, we'll all continue to bitch and moan about the "police state" and post ignorant comments in random places on the internet. Heck, I'm doing that right now!

So when are reckless endangerment charges going to be filed against the pilot? He intentionally steered his craft towards an object that they admit through their own filings presented a risk of a crash.

Was the pilot the only occupant of this aircraft?Possibly more important what happens to the two men falsely arrested? Are there procedures to "annull" any record of their arrest?

Who cares if the pilot was the only one onboard, a crash of a full sized helicopter full of fuel is a significant risk to everyone in the vicinity. As to the charges, sure there's expungement (though in some states you can only expunge convictions, not arrests), but unfortunately for these guys they ran to the media so there's a more or less permanent record.

Since I'm here, I'll point out that cops do the same thing on the ground. They chase you, maybe you're doing 80 or 90, but the cop exceeds 100 mph catching up to you. The police report states that the chase exceeded 100 mph, and the judge looks at that, and throws several books at you.

FAA, and probably NYPD police procedure, has a lot stricter guidelines with regard to vehicle pursuit regarding helicopters. While somewhat similar, this really is an apples and oranges scenario. Not everyone can fly a helicopter. Or a drone for that matter. Most everyone however, with the minimalist of experience, CAN drive a car.

That said, we likely won't see any charges going towards the police. Even though it sounds like they filed a false police report. Isn't that perjury? They are officers of the law!

Filing the false report is the first charge. Next up, unlawful imprisonment. Next up, reckless endangerment of everyone around them who could have been injured/killed (they themselves said it was a very dangerous situation, they don't get to say it was no big deal now). Finally, federal penalties for violating FAA rules and regulations. Perhaps the pilot should have his license suspended.

If NYPD is a police force rather than organized crime, they will see to it that all of the above happens AND release the men they arrested with deepest apologies.

Since I'm here, I'll point out that cops do the same thing on the ground.

But they are not. And while they are police officers, they generally have no authority in the air. What flies in the air is all subject to the FAA and a regular officer (even those flying a police helicopter to assist ground units) are limited to FAA rules and regulations.

Unlike ground vehicles, a police helicopter will not be exempt from FAA flight rules and regulations. If the pilot is flying VFR, he is to maintain VFR separation from other flying objects, whether they are in the air lawful or not. The reasoning behind this is obviously that if he fails to do so and somehow crashes into it, his badge will not protect anyone on the ground from getting hurt from the crashing helicopter or whatever object he flies into.

Furthermore, his badge will give him police authority, but the FAA can simply revoke his pilot's license and ground him.

When you think about it, this is the only sensible approach. Do you want every municipality that owns a helicopter to be trying to police aircraft that are flying overhead? Maybe the plane's registration is bogus. Great, call it in to the FAA as a good citizen and let them deal with it.

There are a lot of safety issues when you try to deal with issues in the air. Indeed, I've heard ATC recordings where ATC is basically trying to ream somebody out for not following procedures correctly, and that is also s

The reasoning behind this is obviously that if he fails to do so and somehow crashes into it, his badge will not protect anyone on the ground from getting hurt from the crashing helicopter or whatever object he flies into.

This reasoning could also be applied to motor vehicles on the ground. It rarely is.

Cars on the ground can, with little exception, stop any time they feel like giving up the chase and turning themselves in to the officers. Aircraft have no such ability, and if you were being actively closely pursued by another aircraft it could even prove fatal to try and land. That doesn't even take into account the risks involved to the people on the ground below, who the police in this case endangered by engaging in pursuit -- the correct action would be to have the ATC track the belligerent until it landed, and arrest the pilots there. Following it at high speed, closely, it precisely what FAA regulations were intended to prevent.

I could not agree more. One addition:

In the air, pilots have the authority to deviate from every rule in the book, if they deem it necessary for the safety of the flight. This is even stressed out by the FAA themselves in every WINGS seminar on this topic I've attended. Roughly the same authority goes to Air Traffic Control when a pilot declares an emergency.

Yes, my non-pilot friends, you read that correct. If a pilot declares an emergency, he is the ultimate authority in the sky over what he does, with ATC being his best wingman with broad authority to divert anyone else. That includes everyone with a badge as well.

Obviously, with authority comes responsibility. Once the flight has ended, the pilot must usually attend a hearing where he (or she) must explain their actions and may even lose their license on it. Every pilot is expected to show good airmenship, and the helicopter pilot pursuing a drone may have been making some judgements that are open for discussion.

In Australia the doctrine is Police do not give chase, EVER! If the suspect's car starts speeding, they have strict protocols in place to back off, radio in the situation and follow from a safe distance

Studies have shown that chasing only escalates the danger to property and the public. So the correct response, is to radio in for support and do everything to protect life and property. They can't really outrun a radio.

There was a recent, going back a few years now, chase that took five days from when they first attempted to stop a car, to the actual capture. There were gaps, but police had photos, videos, registration plates and descriptions of the suspects. They knew it was only a matter of time before the suspects would be caught.

The US was beginning to move in that direction several years back. My memory is a bit foggy - it seems like California was leading the way, and maybe a couple of New England states. Time frame would have been the latter half of the '90's. Then, 9/11/01 happened, and cops were given carte blanche. At some point, fleeing and evading the police was made a felony, so that a cop could just shoot to kill anyone who attempted to flee.

IMHO, giving chase is often justified - but no one can justify chasing a bad

How do these rules deal with the possibility that you cannot gauge the distance? For an object in midair the only available measure of distance is the size of the object. A drone is much smaller than any object you're usually encountering in steady flight (another helicopter, say). Hence you're going to significantly overestimate the distance. Or so would be my thought. Please educate.

They were under ATC. ATC can track objects in the air, even if they're not using a transponder. Using primary radar, ATC will be able to provide traffic advisories. Police helicopters usually fly under "flight following", meaning they would like to be informed of other traffic.

When they were blaming the other guys, they seemed to have no problem determining that it was dangerously close. So we can just take their word for it that the approach was close enough to call it reckless endangerment and that it is worthy of arrest.

A crash is almost not possible unless the drone is way above the chopper and gets pulled down in the wash. A chopper chasing a drone will catch it in the down draft and get tossed under it. The police chopper was in no real danger if they had a visual on it.

Hell there was a case where police raided a home looking for someone who wasn't even there. In the process tossed a flashbang in a kids crib....then disclaimed all responsibility and said it might even lead to charges against the...PERSON WHO WASN'T THERE!

Thats right, if the police have reason to suspect you of something, they are of the opinion its your fault they are investigating and you are responsible for any harm they cause to anyone else by their own actions.

Because the police did not have to get so close to investigate.... It is like cops can be charged with reckless endangerment if they cause issues in a chase if it is determined they should not have been doing what they should have been doing. There is supposed to be a reasonableness to their actions.

Those small-cities which buy surplus APC's for their 'SWAT' teams beg to differ.

They're the police, and due to their newly found paramilitary status are better able to keep us safe. Like from your dog. Did you know it was a threat? It is.. or was, that's why they shot and killed it when breaking into your house.

Remember 9-11? Along with all those poor FDNY guys who died, a few cops got taken out also actually helping people - not many - but a few.

There were TONS of memorials and honors given to the New York Firemen who died, but NOTHING for the NY police who did.

I wonder why.

Agreeing with you: By and large, cops are cowards. They're #1 priority is making sure "they get home safe". They are a bunch of backstabbing murderers as attested to by every cop who has never filed complaints with IA against other officers because "They need to make sure they have each others' backs". If your partner will murder you because you truthfully testify that he lies on his timesheet, that mofo should not be a cop with a gun. Interactions with cops generally is a bad experience. They've even gone to the Supreme court to demand they NOT be obligated to protect people:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Contrast that with the fire department. Sure, there are corrupt fire inspectors and crap, but there's no red/blue wall of silence about it. If I'm passed out from smoke inhalation and the guy breaking down the door and carrying me to safety wants to lighten my wallet while another is doing the CPR thing, I'm AOK with that.

I've personally seen how the rotorwash of a helo more than a half mile away turned over a 25 lb aircraft during a design competition fly-off back in my college days in Florida. Damn good pilot from Univ. of Puerto Rico recovered a highly loaded bird from fully inverted and brought it in. I have no doubt that a 5 lb quad-copter would get tossed around like a speck of dust. Either they weren't that close, or the autopilot did a hell of a job keeping the thing upright and under control.

Sounds to me like the police need to seize those ATC recordings as part of their investigation into this incident. When the police have the evidence in their possession about what happened, then they'll let us know what evidence they want to let us see in accordance to what verdict they want the outcome to have.

Anything else would be prejudicial and could not be supported as factual evidence from a free world.

Sounds to me like the police need to seize those ATC recordings as part of their investigation into this incident. When the police have the evidence in their possession about what happened, then they'll let us know what evidence they want to let us see in accordance to what verdict they want the outcome to have.

Presumably soon after doing this NYPD won't be flying anything due to lack of certificates of airwothyness and pilot's licenses.Even if they do have jurisdiction over FAA recordings the FAA can qui

There's nothing to stop them or even discourage them doing so. In fact procedure often encourages lying to the populace.

It's getting to the point where lethal force will be a justified response to ANY LEO approaching you, your family or your home. Sure it'll still be completely illegal, but from an ethical and survival standpoint, you're being approached by armored, heavily armed, trained forces hostile to any and all life not wearing a similar uniform.

The cops who falsified their reports are going to jail, right? If I am found falsely testifying under oath, that's my sentencing. What? They'll get off with a slap on the wrist and *MAYBE* a week's paid vacation? I wonder why citizens distrust police in this country.

If Lloyd Blankfein and others who attested to the veracity of their financial reports even after they were repeatedly warned their mark-to-market was completely unrealistic, which in turn led to the largest financial disaster in over 70 years, are not being prosecuted for false reporting, I don't see why the police should be.

Especially as in this case no one was harmed. Can't say the same thing about the millions who lost their money or homes, can you?

I hope your "no one was harmed" thing was tongue in cheek. First off, for the rest of these gentlemen's lives, a simple search on google will associate their name with the original news stories that may or may not be updated to prove their innocence. But MOST importantly - they were taken into custody and held against their will, after doing nothing wrong. And the police did this KNOWINGLY. Under any other circumstances that would be called kidnapping, and they would have grounds to civil recompense. T

Filing a false report is a very serious charge as a civilian -- it should be even worse when a couple of cops do it. Lets take a look at this, false arrest, filing false reports, just generally conduct unbecoming, big payout to those falsely arrested.My hat is off to those folks over at the FAA. We can count on the FAA to be honorable and straight shooting, about the only Federal Agency that still cares about doing their job right.

One of the helo officers claims this thing went from 0-2000 ft in 2 seconds. I'll believe that out of a model rocket, or maybe a Diamond Dust with a tuned pipe, but not out of a quadcopter loaded down with a camera. This officer was likely exaggerating what he saw for effect.

I'm listening to the recording of the radio communications. The drone was over 2000' altitude. At first, the cops in the helicopter aren't sure what they're seeing, and they first think it's a fast-moving aircraft in a vertical climb, over the East River. It has red and green lights, like aircraft do. They ask La Guardia ATC radar what they're seeing. ATC isn't seeing it on radar. Then they get closer and see it's a drone of some kind. In a few minutes it's over the George Washington Bridge, miles from the East River.

Once the guys who were operating them were caught, the cops are on the air discussing what to charge them with. The cops on the ground call them "tiny little toys". There's some discussion of "if it's over 1000', it's reckless". The cops aren't quite sure what to charge them with.

The FAA can certainly have them prosecuted. They were operating a drone in class B controlled airspace. That's serious, and dumb. Here's the New York City airspace chart. [vfrmap.com] (Yes, there's actually a VFR corridor over the Hudson River; it's permitted to fly along the river at up to 1300' altitude. There used to be one over the East River, too, but after some jock slammed a light plane into a Manhattan apartment building [wikipedia.org] by going too fast there, it was closed to VFR traffic. These drone operators didn't stay in the VFR corridor, and probably had no clue where it was anyway.)

The drone guys were lucky. LGA has two intersecting runways, 4-22 and 13-31. The one in use depends on wind direction. The approach to 13 and the departure from 31 are over where the drones were operating. LGA happened to be using 4-22 that day. If the other runway had been in use, there would have been a large plane in the area ever 45 seconds or so.

I'm sorry, I'm not usually so harsh, but this is all completely wrong. I'm choosing to believe that you are just completely ignorant of aviation (most people are, I don't hold it against you). But please know the limitations of your knowledge especially when it comes to highly specialized fields with its own rules, customs, language, procedures, etc.

1) 1/2 mile line of sight is no problem for virtually any radio, not even for you cheap-ass blister pack FRS radios. Hell WiFi would probably work alright.2) Nobody said the GWB was 2000 feet in the air. Listen to the radio recording, the guy was cleared for an altitude of 2000 feet (well, at or above, but for his purposes he wanted to be low). The GWB is how he's identifying his position to ATC - it's a VFR waypoint [skyvector.com] and mandatory reporting point for that part of the river. You're interpreting the "near" thing in the strangest way possible, at least in an aviation sense. Later on he mentions being at 800-1000 feet but that was much later.3) They said nothing about Mach numbers. The guy thought he was looking at some military aircraft that was rather further away (and larger) than a tiny drone within tens of feet. The perspective information told him that the thing was basically coming from the ground, but it was probably just a few hundred feet below his altitude or less. Such a climb would certainly appear to be extremely fast if you were interpreting it as being some distance away. You know that commercial jets are going like 500 knots at 30,000 feet but they don't look that fast from the ground? Same phenomenon. This is one of a number of sensory illusions in aviation, most of which are more prevalent at night (this was midnight local time). People just aren't very good at dealing with large expanses of 3D in which things can be (almost) arbitrarily positioned - we do better with 2D and ballistics, which makes sense given our background, but isn't particularly useful for flight.4) His "measurements" don't seem to be relevant to the arrest so I don't know why them being suspect matters very much. Knowing something is above, below, or at the horizon isn't a measurement - it's looking out the window. And if you're at 2000 feet, that's how you decide something is at 2000 feet. I'll admit that his relative measures are more suspect, as I'd expect them to be at night - but again they don't seem relevant. It's certainly far from evidence that they're deliberately trying to lie to arrest this guy. People fly into mountains [wikipedia.org] because of these kinds of sensory illusions, you think they're just screwing with people when they do so? People really are eviscerating this pilot assuming he's their worst impression of a corrupt cop - if he's even a sworn officer, it's probably name only. I'd be surprised if he'd ever cuffed someone in his life.5) Everyone seems to be repeating that the police approached the drone. Sorry, where is this coming from? That terrible Vice "article"? It has no citation for this, aside from the accused, and the transcript doesn't support it. Sorry to call you out specifically, since everybody's doing it, but I've seen no evidence of this particular statement. (Aside: it's pretty sad when the NY Post is far more informative than something at least trying to be legitimate.)6) Every pilot knows everything is recorded, always. Everything. Always. The radios are recorded. All radar everywhere is recorded. The phones are recorded. If I call to get a damn weather briefing, it's recorded. The idea that they'd be surprised that there's a recording is beyond laughable.

I agree that this is more a FAA matter than a police matter. The police have no jurisdiction in the air, but that said the perpetrators were not in the air. This is, funnily enough, an area that the FAA is working on clarifying. That said, these guys should be happy that the city cops are the ones they're dealing with - the FAA would be substantially more unpleasant.

There is no information that the drone tried to ram the helicopter, you are making that up. What information we do have indicates that the helicopter rushed the drone then gave chase when it left the area. From this the police charged the people with reckless endangerment because their helicopter got close to the drone. If there was reckless endangerment it was on the part of the police.

Baring other details being released IMO this isn't much different than the police arresting photographers photographing them for wiretapping or violating their privacy and other such nonsense. The police created this situation deliberately so they could charge the guys. Not much different than the video's of them screaming stop resisting while they beat someone unconsciousness that isn't resisting.

No, they're the bad guys because they (to use the car analogy) saw someone slightly speeding, pulled in front of them, jammed on their brakes in such a way that the guy couldn't avoid crashing into them, and wrote it up in the police report that the guy started chasing them and crashed into them unprovoked.

In short, they lied on the police report to make it seem as though the drone operators were at fault when the police were. Were the drone operators doing something wrong? Possibly. But if they were, ar

What law were they breaking? And why weren't they charged with that? Why did the police lie so that they could charge them with something else?
The drone pilots may have been legally in the wrong, but that does not justify the police lying.

The US Constitution is not a black list it is a white list. It is a document stating which powers The People give the government. This idea has been lost on many people, and I believe is the source of many of the problems we see.

the Constitution is a blacklist of things government is not allowed to do, not a whitelist of things Citizens ARE allowed to do.

I get your sentiment, and support it, but I must quibble on a minor point: The main body of the Constitution is a whitelist of duties the government is charged with, and the means for doing so. The first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, is a blacklist of things the government is forbidden from doing without a constitutional amendment. The 9th and 10th amendments specify that the

This thinking that everything not explicitly listed as unlawful is legal is a strange one - and simply not true.

Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area doesn't mean one is allowed to. Just as there are no explicit law text forbidding reversing in ones car in a parking space - but one can still be arrested for doing that in some situations.

Just because there are no law that forbids flying RC aircraft over a populated area

But there is. 14CFR91 is the basic regulation of aviation. It applies to:

Â91.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including th